It's pretty well known that many Shia fought on teh Iranian side during the Iran/Iraq war. Many of them had spent the last 10-15 years living in Iran but since Saddam was deposed they have come back. Many have connections with the Iranian military from fighting in the Iran/Iraq war. I good portion of Iraqis think Iran is fighting a proxy war in Iraq so the US will be too busy with that to invade Iran. And yes, they'd love to see a pro-Iran shia government in power in Iraq. I mean, that just makes basic sense.

So half of the argument is right. Iran is helping blow up our troops. But that doesn't mean we should attack Iran. It means we shouldn't have been over there in the first place and now we should get the hell out.

My .02

I just think its sad that so many on this board find it neccesary to call people names, not offer any data or sources besides " you are an idiot, dumb, moron, etc..Your thinking makes you then kind of person who ends earth" I shutter to think if that if you have kids and teach them to debate this way they will somehow be better off then just asking simple questions about evidence, data, sources, tests etc.. so then we can debate idea's around facts vs. anger, hate etc.. Many of these questions about policy don't have nice neat ways of analysis to say 1+1 =2 but they do offer ways to get to the heart of why you think one way or another. That is what good discourse can offer. We can all explain our own truths and why we have them.

LWM stands for "Lil' Walter Mitty," A.K.A. "Listless Wanking Misanthrope." He's a victim of permanent pre-Oedipal rage. Ask his mother. Really.

But he's hardcore! So hardcore, he once bought a T-shirt! With a "Die Yuppie Scum" logo! I mean, that's practically the same as taking up arms against The Man with Fidel!

Why do you think that calling people names somehow makes your point any better? This is why people have little sense of why anything matters. When the way you talk or communicate in a discussion is to call people names what do you think that does to how people respect each other. Have I insulted you by calling you a name? Why don't you try having a goal of understanding different viewpoints. I offer data and you could choose to disagree with their sources or methods of the analysis are. I would like to see you offer a good give and take about that. Or offer up a detailed analysis by researchers of university, think tank, news etc.. If you think the whole system is evil or a joke etc.. then that makes it real easy to call everyone a name !

In yesterday’s International Herald Tribune, Henry Kissinger outlined a political program to exit Iraq. If we want to defeat the Neocons dreams, we need to talk about feasable solutions to bring Iran into the fold because it is in their best interests to do so. Here’s in Henry’s words are his thoughts on doing that:

To be sure, Iranian leaders may believe that the wind is at their backs, that the moment is uniquely favorable to realize millennial visions of a reincarnated Persian empire or a reversal of the Shiite-Sunni split under Shiite domination. On the other hand, if prudent leaders exist - which remains to be determined - they might come to the conclusion that they had better treat these advantages as a bargaining chip in a negotiation rather than risk them in a contest over domination of the region.

No American president will, in the end, acquiesce once the full consequences of Iranian domination of the region become apparent. Russia will have its own reasons, principally the fear of the radicalization of its own Islamic minority, to begin resisting Iranian and radical Islamist domination of the Gulf. Combined with the international controversy over its nuclear weapons program, Iran's challenge could come to be perceived by its leaders to pose excessive risks.

Whether or whenever Iran reaches these conclusions, two conditions will have to be met: First, no serious diplomacy can be based on the premise that the United States is the supplicant. America and its allies must demonstrate a determination to vindicate their vital interests that Iran will find credible. Second, the United States will need to put forward a diplomatic position that acknowledges the legitimate security interests of Iran.

Such a negotiation must be initiated within a genuinely multilateral forum. A dramatic bilateral Iranian-U.S. negotiation would magnify all the region's insecurities. For if Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - which have entrusted their security primarily to the United States - become convinced that an Iranian-U.S. condominium is looming, a race for Tehran's favor may bring about the disintegration of all resolve.

Within a multilateral framework, the United States will be able to conduct individual conversations with the key participants, as has happened in the six-party forum on North Korea.

A forum for such an effort already exists in the foreign ministers' conference that met recently at Sharm el-Sheikh. It is in the United States' interest to turn the conference into a working enterprise under strong, if discreet, American leadership.

The purpose of such a forum should be to define the international status of the emerging Iraqi political structure into a series of reciprocal obligations. Iraq would continue to evolve as a sovereign state but agree to place itself under some international restraint in return for specific guarantees.

In such a scheme, the United States-led multinational force would be gradually transformed into an agent of that arrangement, along the lines of the Bosnian settlement in the Balkans.

All this suggests a three-tiered international effort: an intensified negotiation among the Iraqi parties; a regional forum like the Sharm el-Sheikh conference to elaborate an international transition status for Iraq; and a broader conference to establish the peacekeeping and verification dimensions. The rest of the world cannot indefinitely pretend to be bystanders to a process that could engulf them through their default.

Neither the international system nor American public opinion will accept as a permanent arrangement an American enclave maintained exclusively by American military power in so volatile a region. The concept outlined here seeks to establish a new international framework for Iraq. It is an outcome emerging from a political and military situation on the ground and not from artificial deadlines.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/02/opinion/edkiss.php?page=1